Saturday, February 25, 2012

The English Defence League staged a demonstration today in Hyde, an eastern suburb of Manchester in the North of England. They came to town to protest the severe beating earlier this month of two young white boys by a Muslim gang. (For background on this incident, see this brief account from Casuals United, and a longer article from The Daily Mail.)

Needless to say, recent events at Liverpool Crown Court and in Rochdale also loomed large in the topics of speeches at the event. Here’s what EDL leader Tommy Robinson had to say (WARNING: Tommy uses some salty language here and there in his speech):

28
comments:

The demo appeared to go very well, and Greater Manchester Police have even issued a statement to that effect. All credit therefore is due to the EDL stewards who ensured that the demonstration passed off well. For further details of the demo, together with photographs and videos, visit http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2012/02/edl-hyde-demo-coverage.html

On Monday there is a documentary on Channel 4 about EDL and islamic extremists. The company who have made this documentary are the same company who made the Undercover Mosque programs about 5 years ago (and other programmes on the negative aspects of islam in Britain). BBC made a spoiler last week on BBC3. The state broadcasting company would not have made such a spoiler programme if next week's programme was not explosive.

Just on the past Friday, a similar demonstration was held in my home town (Oulu, Finland) to protest the killing of a local immigrant pizzeria worker. (The motive of the killing has not been confirmed to be racial, but of course the demonstration had an anti-racist tone to it.)

I believe this is exactly what we non-minorities need to do: to hold a protest each time one of our own gets beaten, raped, or killed. And these protests must be titled "anti-racist" and/or "peace marches". We whites, too, are available of scoring victim points.

That Daily Mail article was heartbreaking. I was just looking at that poor kid's broken face, saying, "Well England, just keep telling yourself, 'Diversity is our greatest strength!'" I would love to send that photo to every Labour party leader, and ask them if they are still proud of their policies. Who among them will plead for justice for this young man? Just despicable...

Chiu ChunLing, you keep saying we need real and equal justice etc. But what good is that if Muslim gangs and pedophiles are sent to prison and then new young Muslims raised on the Koran quickly take their place? And with the demographics moving against the native Britons, in the end Great Britain will be lost anyway and real and equal justice is going to go right out the window. No, what Britain has to have is massive deportations, it is the only hope.

And what justice is there that native Britons are required to waste significant time and money on trials and incarceration of Muslims who USE the prison system to 1) form violent Muslim prison gangs to threaten poor native Britons who are incarcerated with them as victims of the state that hopes to silence its critics (as Tommy Robinson was incarcerated for a falsified crime) and work against native Briton criminals, and 2) force Islam on fellow prisoners who become Muslims just to survive while in prison, and 3) recruit mentally ill and violent natives to become Muslims.

Certainly, extension of the privileges of citizenship to persons that have in no way earned them is not justice. It is only fair for Muslims that trespass against non-Islamic nations and commit crimes in the name of Islam be treated comparably to how non-Muslims should be treated if they were to intrude into Islamic nations and commit crimes against Islam.

Now, once that became the norm, I'm sure that Muslims would hurry to change their ideas of how the crimes against Islam of non-Muslims in Islamic nations should be treated. And when those changed ideas are borne out by a changed implementation of Islam, that should be given full weight.

Chiu Chun-Ling, the action I described to bring about a positive result is massive deportations. Yes, God did give us free will, but nobody is going to hell. If you say someone is going to hell then you are putting limits on God's compassion, love, and mercy. That would be very narrow-minded of you.

Chiu ChunLing, what made you think I was Catholic? I never said I was Catholic. As for "hell", a great mystic and Catholic monk wrote," There is NOTHING more ALIENATING than the concept of a vengeful God condemning people to eternal punishment. This concept seems to be an inheritance from a Semitic monotheism, which was unable to overcome the dualism in this system of thought." Why we are even talking about "hell" here at GoV I really have no idea, but it is kind of fun I guess. (laughter)

Chiu: Egghead here. The other anonymous was not me (one reason that it is so important for people to use nicknames!), but I am back in now.

I am Catholic, but I also believe that every soul goes to heaven in the end - by its own free will choice. In other words, in the end, God is able to convince everyone at the same time that loving God and being good is the answer.

Hell is the absence of God. If souls choose to be with God, souls choose to be in heaven - of their own free will. It just takes some souls longer than others to make the right choice.

And, God may either interact with and incarnate souls in any way that God chooses in order to put those souls in situations that help those souls to make the right choice.

Meh, I'm not particular on hell being permanent, though I hadn't known Catholics were so flexible about that point. The point is the same, people go to hell even if they don't stay there forever.

Of course, there are other ultimate destinations than heaven...though that might not be quite the way to put it. You fundamentally believe that God is willing to utterly foreclose those options by the use of a "persuasive" power that is essentially coercive. But I'm willing to accept God's word (given in perfectly good faith and not because I had any kind of dirt on Him) that He'll leave people free to choose even when some of them don't choose Him in the end.

Basically, you're okay with detaining people indefinitely under any degree of duress until they make a decision that is "acceptable". You really don't see that as an infringement of their freedom of choice.

Chiu: You have misinterpreted my meaning. I think that, one way or another, God lets souls go around and around until those souls learn what God already knows: Everyone comes to God in the end of their own free will. In the meantime, souls create a lot of unnecessary angst for themselves and others. Some call that angst hell, others call the angst a separation from God. Souls put them themselves in hell. God helps souls to see the error and enables them to change and welcomes them to heaven like the prodigal sons that they are. God: The only hope and change!

Yawn, you're about as original as Peter and Paul.... I cannot remember who said what; and I cannot find the citation; BUT, I read once that Peter and Paul had a conversation where one of them said to the other that everyone would be saved in the end, and the other replied, "Don't tell people that, or no one will be motivated to be good!"

I believe that the lesson is that, when humans LEARN via experience that EVIL is EVIL, then humans will be smart enough to choose goodness and God.

The difference is how much time and energy do humans waste hurting each other - and themselves - and God - before humans make the right choice?

But, remember, God stands outside time, so the amount of time that it takes for humans to learn their lessons matters more to humans than it matters to God.

Truth is truth. Be good because being good creates heaven which cannot fully exist until humans are good.

No mother can experience heaven while her child burns in Hell - physically or metaphorically - via free will or not.

In the same way, God cannot fully enjoy heaven while his creations suffer - even of their own free will. God needs us to be happy for God to be happy.

If God wants to try and violate the terms on which justice has permitted His extension of mercy, then He's certainly free to make that choice.

But I believe He knows the consequences, or at least understands that justice cannot be evaded indefinitely.

Those unwilling to suffer the consequences of their actions can never partake of truth. Those who cut themselves off from truth can never be free.

If you cannot endure the suffering of permitting others to make a real decision as to whether or not to enter heaven, then you have already forfeited that choice yourself. But every good thing is only "good" because it is freely chosen.

Is heaven good? Then it is a choice. Is it not a choice? Then it is not good.

Justice does not require that freedom and good exist, but it does not permit good to exist without freedom.

Chiu: Those who sin DO suffer the consequences of their sin - which enables sinners to LEARN that sin is self-defeating and sin must be avoided.

Being good is ALWAYS be a choice. Just because every soul learns to make the right choice does NOT negate the choice. For example, Satan lived as an angel in heaven - and then Satan chose to be evil.

Granted, this process of learning to love God and good takes a long time - time which God created in order to give souls the chance to learn spiritual lessons in a real life lab environment.

There is an end to time, but that end is NOT justice which would be a hollow and empty goal. Rather, that end is infinite LOVE - which some define as heaven - with the temporary lack of heaven being defined as hell.

I have no philosophical objection to the idea of a revolving-door heaven other than that it happens not to be true. Those who choose to turn their backs on God make that choice irrevocably. God could, I suppose, give them unlimited chances to make that choice, but hasn't done so.